China and the MPA 223
A riddle: What do China and the Motion Picture Association have in common? The answer this week: arrogance. Plus stupidity.
Both are about to learn the hard way what American educators, religious leaders, law enforcement officials - even politicians - are just beginning to figure out: The Net isn't censorable. Neither is the software that runs programs, links Web sites, plays, movies and music, stores or transmits information and ideas.
The Net is an unyielding trade-off. If you want to do business or sell things on it, you sacrifice monopoly and control, and use technology to offer choice and options. If you don't, you're heading backwards.
Both the Chinese government and the MPA have learned little from recent technological history, following in the bovine steps of the music industry, which alienated a generation of liberated music lovers by huffing and puffing but failing to slow or stop the spread of digital music technology.
Institutions both governmental and corporate that feel threatened by the Net and the Web, are developing a pattern. Rather than embrace innovative and empowering new technologies to offer consumers and citizens choice and freedom, they seek out a handful of targets to use as warnings, examples of the nasty fate that will befall transgressors.
If any approach is doomed to fail in this era, it's that one. Too bad some people will have to pay along the way, sacrifices on the altar of corporate or governmental obliviousness.
For all the media hype about technology, pornography and e-commerce, one of the most striking but still largely unrecognized legacies of the Net has been the death blow it's dealt to the very idea of censorship. One industry and institution after another - music, the law, medicine, Wall Street, academe, the media- is coming to terms with this new reality, voluntarily or otherwise.
For hundreds of years, censorship has been the primary tool by which government, monarchies, educational and religious institutions and, lately, powerful corporations, have asserted political, cultural and economic dominance. They're going to have to learn to live without it.
This week, police in Norway raided the home of Jon Johansen, a teenager, at the request of the Motion Picture Association, which has joined in the global effort to suppress certain software - in this case DVD viewing code -- deemed responsible for copyright violations and intellectual property theft (last week, the recording industry went after Mp3.com). Last month, the DVD Copyright Control Association sued 72 hackers and Web site authors for posting - or even linking to software (DeCSS) that unlocks the system for preventing illegal copying of video discs.
Johansen's arrest got widespread media coverage in America, unusual for a foreign-based copyright case. Perhaps one reason is that companies like Disney, owner of ABC News, which covered the story yesterday on television and radio, have a decidedly vested interested in publicizing the notion that music, movies and culture in general belong to private corporations, not code-writing geeks and nerds. Hackers (usually crackers) have often been singled out in this way - paraded before hordes of reporters and hauled off dramatically to jail. The authorities know they haven't got a prayer of rounding up all the alleged wrongdoers, but they can make so much noise they might fool people into thinking otherwise.
The arrest came at almost the same moment China announced restrictions on its burgeoning Net chat rooms and e-mail accounts. Ocurring continents apart, the two incidents seemed oddly connected.
The MPA - along with the music industry, one of the world's largest cartels outside of Columbia -- has claimed in several legal actions that the kind of DVD-viewing software Johansen allegedly used was developed outside of the industry's monopoly, and is thus illegal. The organization particularly wants to suppress so-called reverse engineering and the public posting and sharing of DVD codes.
Governments like China are attempting a different kind of information control, an equally doomed effort to stick their fingers in the digital dike.
On Wednesday, the agency that oversees China's Internet users [http://slashdot.org/article.pl'sid=00/01/26/1254221&mode=thread] issued severe new regulations intended to control the release of "state secrets" and other unauthorized information over the Internet, one of the broadest efforts yet by a government to do what is inherently impossible: control online speech.
The Chinese government is in a classic technological quagmire, almost the same one facing the movie industry. Does it want to grow and prosper in a techno-driven, linked global economy or not? Embracing and deploying innovative new technology is essential to investment and development in the 21st Century. That puts increasing pressure on undemocratic governments, who quite correctly dread the spread of computing, e-mail and chat rooms, and on corporations, who fear the loss of profitable monopolies.
China has nearly nine million Internet users, significantly up from two million a year ago, according to a survey by the government's China Internet Information Center. But many Chinese believe the figure is dramatically higher. One computer analyst working from Hong Kong wrote earlier this year that China may actually have more than 35 million e-mail accounts. As for the world's code-sharing DVD nerds, nobody knows how many there are - but it's believed to number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Despite Johansen's show arrest, and the imprisonment of a handful of Chinese political dissidents speaking out online, both groups are beyond conventional policing. But that doesn't mean a lot of people won't pay by being persecuted, jailed or worse before the futility of the censorship effort becomes clear.
This week's regulations in China were announced by the aptly-named State Secrecy Bureau, a murky agency which seems to be taking over efforts to control the Net and to identify and arrest users who post "illegal" information on the Web.
Does this seem vastly different from the way corporate interests around the world (for more on the issues surrounding the Johansen incident, see http://www.eff.org/ ) are seeking to curb the dissemination of software and intellectual property online? Maybe it isn't. Both corporations and government, since they can't monitor all of the many millions of offenders online, are singling out targets of opportunity. They believe they're sending miscreants a message, but instead, they appear to be alienating and enraging the next generation of consumers as well as prodding geeks and nerds to continue to develop software as a political and cultural tool.
The powerful reality is that there aren't enough cops and lawyers on the planet, not even in China, to monitor all the chat rooms and the millions of e-mail accounts. There sure aren't enough to police the distribution of open source and other code like the one that runs DVD's.
Ultimately, such regulations are utterly doomed, as are efforts to restrict source codes for DVD players or the transmission of music and information online.
But before China and the MPA learn this inevitable lesson, an indeterminate number of victims will be snared and made examples of. As futile and sometimes tragic as these persecutions are, these people will pay the price for the growing freedom everyone else is enjoying.
Comment removed (Score:3)
A few things to consider... (Score:2)
If Open Source is to win, REALLY win, it must defeat not the armies of the Sauron (the MPA) or the Orcs and Trolls of Sauruman (the RIAA) but the One Ring (Power Over Others). Yes, that means -fighting- those armies, but as in Tolkein's depiction, those battles can be won or lost by either side, and it doesn't matter. It really doesn't. All that matters is whether The Ring is destroyed or handed over.
Re:One of your better articles, Katz (Score:1)
IANAL yet, I think Stiletto has an excellent point here. As long as the DeCSS code stays in its current mystic form, it'll be easy for the MPAA's layers to manipulate a technologically-challenged judge into any sort of demented rulings. Yet, it we were to have a product to show to the judge and argue "See, we couldn't do this without DeCSS", I think the MPAA's case would be much harder to sell.
Re "the net isn't censorable" (Score:2)
But while that was really true of USENET, it was less true of the Internet. The situation became worse as the technology progressed. Early routers were very simple, looked at each packet independently, and never examined content. Very little control of the network was available. Serious sites tried to have multiple routes, and packets from the same session might take different routes. So there was no good place to insert censorship.
Now we have firewalls, proxies, more rigid network structure, and much smarter routers. Blocking based on IP address is routine. Blocking based on content is available as off-the-shelf technology. So is user-monitoring software. All of this scales up enough that all of China is being firewalled.
So, unfortunately, the net is now censorable. Not perfectly, but enough so that we can't just laugh at censorship threats.
Why censorship in China will work (Score:2)
Now, I am not saying that the Chinese people want to be censored, but I think they don't view the Chinese government as censoring the Internet. Rather, they view it as the government protecting the people from a Western lifestyle that is full of greed and shy of morals.
In fact, I think the greatest piece of evidence to show that censorship in China will indeed work is the fact that ordinary Chinese citizens are helping censor the Internet! See:c e000125.html [go.com]
http://abc news.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/china_webpoli
I had a friend who was a diplomat in Russia. A couple years ago, he came home, and we discussed Russia's future. He thought Russia would revert to Communism before year 2000. His argument was that the Russian populace liked the Communist system, and had come to expect a big government, big brother type of authority in charge. Granted, it's past 2000, and Russia isn't Communist... yet. Who knows what Putin has up his sleeves, though. :)
In summary... while we Westerners might find any restriction of free speech as unforgiving, other cultures see protection from outside thoughts and ideals as comforting.
Re:Is Censorship/control ALWAYS bad? (Score:3)
It's the same assumption made by those who think voters should have to register.
It's the same assumption made by those who thought that women shouldn't vote, or that the poor shouldn't vote, or that no one should vote.
It's the same assumption made by those who apathetically allow others to make decisions for them.
The assumption is that people are not capable of running their own lives, and making their own decisions.
I would ask the poster: what measures do you recommend for stopping these examples of hysteria? It sounds to me like the best recipe is creating a society where people are encouraged to think for themselves. How exactly does a society become mature enough to respond correctly to misinformation? By being exposed to it, and simultaneously being allowed to look at all the information, and decide the facts themselves. What caused the harms that were corrected by the laws you mention? Lack of access to the truth.
Maybe people don't always act like adults. Maybe we do make horrible mistakes due to ignorance, fear, and gullibility. But the lesson of liberty is that we must be allowed to act like adults, educate ourselves, and make the important decisions. Because the alternative is tyranny.
Re:A technological solution (Score:1)
IANAL, but I question whether for most systems it is legal to link your GPLed code with anything but something such as the GPLed Kaffe. (Well for you since it's your code anything is legal, but I'm talking about others to whom it is distributed.) A Java VM is not a systems component for most systems so it doesn't fall under that exception to the GPL. This sort of technicality is what got KDE excluded from being distributed with Debian.
Re:You will never be "cool enough" to join. (Score:2)
Every single one of your points is dead on, I am a pathetic rutabaga-loving, New Yorker-snubbing, American Anthem-listening, passwordless sham and I haven't the courage to face another day (BLAM!)
Thank you.
Re: How It Works (I Believe...) (Score:2)
The Don Knot's guy might become angered and release a plauge of locusts upon the land, or something.
Re:Multi-binding API needed for wide acceptance (Score:2)
Re:The Net can be censored (Score:1)
Re:Nice! (Score:1)
. . . and his grammatical ones. Sorry, but people judge you by the words you use and the grammar you do or do not know. I'm not a very hard-core grammar or spelling kind of guy, especially with these informal posts, however, some of these longer articles should be at least checked by one copy-editor. Katz's words are the words, like it or not, that will most likely see in a mainstream medium. While many of these people won't care one way or another, some will, and those are educated people in other fields. We need support from end-users of products, especially against the MPAA and DVD consortium (sp). Nerds alone can't do it.
I'll offer to do it (the copy-editing), but I'm only human, and still learning.
Re:Results of the latest meeting: (Score:2)
Jon is funny; laugh. (Score:1)
> largest cartels outside of Columbia
Hee hee. Didn't know Columbia [missouri.edu] was such a dangerous place. By chance did you mean Colombia?
Earl Higgins
Re:The Net can be censored (Score:1)
Re:The Net can be censored (Score:1)
American University law professor James Boyle [american.edu] has a nice article addressing this point ("Foucault in Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hard-Wired Censors" [american.edu]), in which he argues that proponents of the idea that the web is uncensorable underestimate the ability of the government to regulate the net, and to enroll private agents (e.g. ISPs) to enforce policy.
Warning: Be prepared for somewhat dense prose, if you're not used to reading this kind of article. It's well worth the effort, though; he certainly changed the way I thought about net censorship. I also recommend the rest of his site [american.edu] to anyone interested intellectual property issues. (If only he'd get rid of that one <blink> tag, arggghh.)
Re:Censorship lives (Score:2)
I wonder if zealots are strident because they're insecure: they see evidence all around them that their cherished beliefs are wrong.
More Katz idiocy (Score:1)
2. The net is very censorsable -- at least as censorable as r/l. Katz is mistaken when he thinks that in order for the net to be censored that someone has to monitor *every* chat room. Not even close. All that is needed is to monitor a significant minority of chat rooms and make several high profile examples of offenders in order to deter the sort of things China doesn't want (this is, after all, exactly the role fulfilled by other criminal prosecutions -- no crime can be punished perfectly, but by publicly punishing a broad sample of cirminals, others are deterred from committing the same crime, though again, not perfectly).
In China, for example, state censorship of the Internet works surprisingly well. I've talked to people in Chia via email who refuse to talk about certain topics because they know people have been thrown in jail for such activities.
Fear is rather easy to generate for an authoritarian state.
You are way too over-sensitive... (Score:1)
Grow up.
In a political discussion it is perfectly acceptable to say, "America screwed up royally" when referring to the American government screwing up royally. It is equally acceptable to say "China has no clue about what the Internet really is," when you're referring to China's stupid attempt to regulate online speech.
Now if he said "Chinese suck", then I'd agree with you. But to say "China sucks" is quite acceptable. You cannot be racist about a LAND, you can be racist about a PEOPLE.
---
A technological solution (Score:2)
--
Re:hm.... (Score:1)
Imagine if everyone said that Unix was made by "America"
Re:The Net can be censored (Score:2)
The MPAA and others are guilty of underestimating peoples' curiosity. They are also guilty of stupidity for encouraging the use of such an easily broken code scheme. Now they want blame every one else for their mistakes.
I'm surprised production houses and artists haven't sued the MPAA, the RIAA and others for endorsing sloppy encryption techniques.
What a bunch of arrogant, self important idiots, all of them.
At the high prices Record companies and movie distributors charge, it's just too temptimg for criminals to resist getting in on the action.
MPAA boycott (Score:3)
I normally post a movielog on my web page, detailing every theatrical release I see. After these recent events, I've decided to start an Anti-Movielog, in which I will record all the movies I don't see, but otherwise would have if these outrages had not occured.
I just got to thinking, why not implement it on a massive scale? How many people who normally go to movies are actually planning to boycott? If there's an appreciable number, wouldn't it be cool to have a web page where people could go and tell everyone exactly which movies they're not seeing on what dates. Then we could keep a running total to show the movie industry exactly how much money they're costing themselves.
Of course, keeping it honest could be a potential problem. We wouldn't want the hypothetical database to be Slashdotted and the polls stuffed by repeat voters, or people who wouldn't have seen the movies anyway. Still, it's an idea to think about. I'd like to know anyone else has ideas about this. If there's enough interest, I'd be willing to help out on such a project.
Overconfident? (Score:1)
Wether we like it or not, this is going to be settled in court and this is not finished yet. If DeCSS is outlawed, this will give the MPA an instrument against everyone (in the US at last) that distributes it and considering who owns the media - what do you think will the average american think about those who get arrested?
There is a chance that you are right, but that is all it is. A chance. Moveable type, radio, television were similar chances and look what happened.
Ciao, Peter
Wha? (Score:1)
Yes, that's not the full name, but most people do call it China, just like people call France 'France' and the United Kingdom the 'United Kingdom', both of which have longer real names.
Or are you upset he attributed the actions of the government to the country?
I'm really confused here.
-David T. C.
not enough police and lawyers (Score:2)
crosses several types of things that governments
do.
Whenever governments try to legislate and curb
act which are not violent, and have no victem
(in the case of software copying, you could argue
that the software company is a "victem" however
they don't even know its going on) then they
create a big problem.
With "real" crimes, there is a victem. Either
a body on the ground with some evidence as to
how it happend ot identiy of the killer through
fingerprints, or a person who was robbed etc.
ie. the victem brings the attention of the police
to the crime. If Joe's store is robbed, surely he
isn't going to sit back and hope the police decide
to come by and ask him if he has been robbed
lately.
Whats my point?
The point is, that with all this "intellectual
property" (what a silly term) the crime that
is being searched for is almost impossible to
identify. Any TCP/IP connection can be one...it
can be happening in the privacy of someones
bedroom and noone will ever goto the police and
complain.
There will NEVER be enopugh manpower to hunt
down consensual "crimes". Whether it is stopping
"Unauthorized copying", protitution, drugs,
or sex with foodstuffs (which is illegal in some
states).
The real danger is that things like this will be
used as an excuse to give the police more and more
powers. It will end up being used (not necissarily
intentionally) to erode privacy.
Re:Misconceptions. (Score:2)
I'm glad you learned that in a place like Slashdot, as opposed to "traditional media," the six degrees of separation are actually one degree of separation. That degree being the will to speak. If you have it, you'll be seen and heard by many others
"I don't know why they don't show up."
-- your Karma is likely low, and people aren't seeing you because of thresholds (or it could be you don't post as much as some). I suggest you preview a few times before hitting submit, and then make sure the comment is posted via your user page [slashdot.org]. It's also good for tracking replies to your posts, and keeping on top of interesting threads.
Have fun..
---
Scaling problem : spam (Score:1)
(Caveat: this comment is based on reading the project overview - please correct me if I missed something)
I have also pondered such a technology-based solution to censorship. Although the idea is attractive, a huge obstacle to implementation, which as far as I can tell Freenet does not address, is the spam problem. If such a system allowing anonymous posting ever becomes widely used (which is the goal, after all), I would predict that spammers would quickly clog it to the point of making it unusable (cite Usenet as precedent).
This problem rules out most straightforward implementations. My idea to solve this is not fully developed, but would be a network that anyone could access, but that only those who "payed" could post on. Payment would consist of operating a server, and via an untracable digital cash scheme, operation of the server would give you the right to post (minus system overhead).
For example, if you run a server that can store 20 MB of content from the network and the overhead tax is 50%, you would get digital cash that let you post 10 MB of material on the network. This would prevent spam, since the spammers couldn't get a free ride: they would have to pony up storage space.
The big problem (obviously) is devising an authentication system that creates the digital cash that is both 1) secure and 2) does not constitute a point of attack for a goverment trying to bring down the system.
I'd be interested in hearing whatever ideas people might have as to how to accomplish this.
You sir, are an idiot. (Score:1)
Re:A technological solution (Score:1)
Excellent stuff. This is the closest thing I've seen to this [slashdot.org]. We cannot have a stable physical location for storing material which someone may object to (a "data haven") because of the lack of suitable places (Cryptonomicon notwithstanding). Your paper [sourceforge.net] provides a virtual alternative (or at least, part of it).
I'd urge everyone with coding time and a concern about this to get behind this project.
How far has development progressed? Are you building in the trapdoor function and signed update facilities mentioned in section 9 of the paper? I think updates would be necessary for developers to use the system as a means of publishing code.
Have you ever actually been to China? (Score:1)
Re:Is Censorship/control ALWAYS bad? (Score:2)
Funny. Don't recall making any of those assertions. However, your post does point out hat I didn't clarify a few things.
I would ask the poster: what measures do you recommend for stopping these examples of hysteria? It sounds to me like the best recipe is creating a society where people are encouraged to think for themselves.
I would recommend education. Ultimately, I would want a society where everyone HAS to learn, has to grow, has to think. I'm a strong believer in sinking resources into education and encouraging critical thinking.
However, such development takes time, decades even. A population that has not yet reached that level of maturity is vulnerable throughout that entire time. That is why I feel that censorship is sometimes a necessary evil, a stopgap measure until the population has reached the maturity required. I do not advocate permanent censorship :)
As an analogy, think of raising a child. Yes, you sink huge amounts of time and effort educating the child. However, neither do you allow the little tyke unrestricted freedom and access, because he might go walk on a freeway, stick his finger in an electric outlet or something of the sort. Are you not taking away his freedom? Are you not taking away his rights? Yes. But only for as long as necessary.
Freedom is fantastic. Human rights are awesome. However, blindly asserting that it is appropriate at any stage, any time, any person ... is irresponsible. Wisdom is knowing when to apply the right concepts at the right time. For a final thought - look at the development of countries in Asia. Compare the development of "true democracies" in the American sense vs. the "democratic dictatorships". You will find that on average, it was the "less free" nations that developed the best. There are notable exceptions of course.
In summary: To each when they are truly ready for it, and only then. Full democracy and freedom are appropriate for societies that have matured enough to support it.Let them kill themselves (Score:1)
The net is the great equalizer. Empowering the individual. So use that power for good. Do not let the big corporate greedy monopolistic bastards scare you with thier strong arm tactics, for then they have won.
a big FUCK YOU to government and corporate scare tactics used to silence freedom.
(and a DeCSS mirror: http://cubicmetercrystal.com/decss/ [cubicmetercrystal.com] )
Re:Is Censorship/control ALWAYS bad? (Score:1)
So, you're saying that freedom is the American imperialist tool of oppression?
Modern countries (see Europe & US) also fall prey (Score:2)
Just look at Europe and the insane paranoia over beef and Mad Cow Disease. There's never been any proof of the link between MCD and CJD. Hell, there's not even any info on whether or not the incidence of CJD is higher than its historical or natural level.
Then there are the green pressure group scare tactics over genetically modified foods, pharmaceuticals, or pretty much any new technology. A US ad by Turning Point shows a mouse with a human ear growing on its back (transplanted cells into a plastic-matrix merely being fed by the mouse's circulatory system, e.g. incubated), and the green ad uses the picture as an example of the HORRIFIC abuse that genetic engineering poses on nature (even tho the actual mouse wasn't GM'ed)
The whole precautionary principle debate is ridiculous. If it was truly applied to all new technologies, we wouldn't be able to eat any new recipes. Can you prove that those new Smoothy drninks that blend together lots of veggies won't result in a chemical side-effect? Better run government tests on that! Does anyone actually realize that cooking *is* chemistry? That's not to say that there should be no regulation, since regular *breeding* as described above is also regulated (many "natural" plants have lots of toxins in them) What's needed is rational discourse however, not bohemian granola hippies teaming up with labor unions and dancing wild in the streets of Seattle, or green pressure groups opening spreading false propaganda to encourage fear.
(see http://www.junkscience.com/dec99/earie.htm )
Some hack farmer blindly crosses different plant species, with huge bits of genes being swapped back and forth (some infact is "genetic junk" being accidently reactivated), and people think it is perfectly natural, and "safer" Meanwhile, a scientist transfers a single gene between two species instead of cut-and-pasting huge segments, and it is somehow "dangerous" (while at the same time, being more precise and careful), because it's not "natural"
There is a total lack of education about RISK in this society, and the pressure groups are praticing a scare compaign to take advantage of that.
In fact, there is a general lack of tolerance in general. Everything is seen as black and white. Corporations? Evil. Government? Evil? Socialism? Evil. Capitalism? Evil. GM? Evil. Microsoft? Evil. Closed Source? Evil. No one bothers to consider or weigh specific cases or situations any more. Everything is simple categorized and dismissed.
On slashdot, I see nine gazillion comments on every new story to the effect "what's so new about this? big deal." Before people even read a story, they hit the reply button and start dismissing it. And while there are generally a few thoughtful essays posted, the vast majority of responses are 1-3 line dismissals or "dittos"
Can someone please teleport me to Vulcan or some planet where there is more thoughful discussion?
Now I don't mean to be over-sensitive (Score:2)
don't forget australia (Score:5)
So far, the Australian Broadcasting Authority [aba.gov.au] has issue a couple of "Takedown Notices" to certain websites hosting prohibited content. Each of those sites was back up again running from an offshore host server within hours.
Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au] has more details..
--
The Net can be censored (Score:2)
You got it wrong this time (Score:5)
I wish you to be right. But I think you are wrong. Neither the politicians, nor the leaders had the resources behind them MPAA has. They had to push questionable laws and usually they failed (Australia being a noteable exemption). The difference in this case is:
The law (MCPA) has already been pushed and quite a few previous laws exist.
These people do not need to finance a media campaign to promote their cause. And they can promote it at no extra expense. As I said in one of the previous threads on the topic they can lie as much as they wish and there is nobody to oppose them with an equivalent amount of firepower. Quoting myself from a previous thread:
A LIE REPEATED ONE HUNDRED TIMES BECOMES THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Gobels
Repeat after me: "encrypted DVD cannot be copied" - exempt from the presentation of MPAA for the preliminary injuction in New York. The transcript is at:2600.com - one of the sites hit with injunction. The quote is located in the very beginning.
Presenting it here once again for sake of paranoia (who knows what will they try to injunct next time, the truth maybe):
MR. GOLD: Now, before plaintiffs were willing to make DVDs available, they decided that they had to have an encryption technology so that the content and their copyright interest in the content could be protected, something that would scramble the picture and scramble the sound. And that system was created, and it is called CSS, which stands for content scrambling system. And you can't watch a movie unless you have an authorized DVD player, and the authorized DVD player has the computer key to the program. So with a DVD and an authorized player, the authorized player will unscramble the picture and the sound and you can watch your movie. But you can't copy it. The CSS technology prevents that.
Yeah, right, not like I can copy the entire DVD bit by bit encrypted, make a 100000 copies and sell them...
And as you see the judge accepted this argument wholehartedly and put the entire weight of the US law system behind it. Though the argument is a lie. One that has been repeated 100 times so far and shall be repeated until Gobels holds true.
There has not been a single case when such firepower and finances have been used to make the net silent. And the chances of bringing the Net silent in this case are too high.
You also miscalculate for the fact that all those who failed before are likely to join the crusade seeing MPAA to score points aginst the net as a whole. The Net against all who want to put it under control... Well, I will make no guesses here. I doubt that the net will win so we can all go to O'Raily and by ourselfs a coopy of DataBase Nation to educate ourselves on how shall we live further on. Or a copy of 1984 for that matter.
P.S. I hope I am wrong as well... But...
DeCSS: DVD viewing software (Score:2)
It's important that we refer to it in that way to make the point that it is control over their viewing monopoly that the MPAA are in fact trying to enforce, and not what they actually claim in court.
Perhaps a few might defend the morality of their primary directive "make film once, suck the public dry forever", but nobody sane would argue in favor of their control of DVD viewing software on computers --- that just smells too much of multi-sector monopoly. No doubt this is why the MPAA lawyers never mention any reason beyond the ficticious "piracy" and equally imaginary "keys to the store" -- they know that if they made the MPAA's real goal explicit then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The papers and other media need to be made aware of the MPAA's real target, and the term "DVD viewing software" should be used whenever possible to drive the real issue home, repeatedly.
Re:Copyrights... (Score:2)
Write to:
Director of Licensing,
TOLKIEN ENTERPRISES,
2600 Tenth Street
Berkeley CA 94710.
They are a division of the Saul Zaentz Company, but I believe that the Tolkien Estate (Christopher and the others) are the copyright holders, and the above is a licensee
dave
Re:Please! (Score:2)
Education without some form of indoctrination is a myth. The best we can do is to minimize the indoctrination component by exposing the student to a variety of views, while at the same time giving them the tools to compare, contrast, and realize the full implications of each one.
In many areas of human endeavor, there is no objective standard. Is the "Ode to Joy" a better piece of music than "Axis: Bold as Love"? (I'm not touching that question with a ten-foot pole, thanks.) Science is not immune: we have to deal with questions like what makes a theory more "elegant" than another, or what does the collapse of the quantum wave function really "mean"?Even mathematics is built of a heap of axioms, which in themselves are not objective. The only thing that sets the axioms apart from some other set of declarations is that they are useful to us - they help us deal with the universe in such as way as to meet our wants and needs and enjoy our lives. Which is, at its heart, a very subjective recommendation.
So what's the standard? I can't see a sound argument for anything other than, "Does this improve the quality of my life?"
Re:A technological solution (Score:2)
--
Re:You will never be "cool enough" to join. (Score:2)
Re:Here ya are... (Score:2)
Sure. Though, in fairness, the MPAA? (regex) really needs to decide what its name is; furthermore, all of the lawsuits have been filed by the "MPAA". Now, the "MPA" may have had the kid arrested. All I know is that "industry stooge Jack Valenti" (tm) is involved with both. And I have $100 that says Katz got this right by accident (in the same way that the late Gene Siskel was only right about movies when he agreed with Roger Ebert).
This is starting to make my head hurt.
(Incidentally, the DVD fiasco made Reason Express this week; see here [reason.com] for details.)
Re:Please! (Score:2)
Bloom's just another cultural supremicist who equates "different (i.e., non-DWEM) ideas may be valid" with "all ideas are equally valid".
(For the record, I should point out that about 50% of my ancestors are DWEMs, and I bear them no ill will. I'm a fan of many DWEMs, but there are also people who aren't dead, white, European, or male, who I highly respect.)
And if this were being learned, school uniforms and student drug tests would never be accepted. We'd have students standing up in the middle of DARE lectures asking about prohibition-fueled violence, or history students demanding to be taught about the labor movement of the late 1800s. At the very least we'd have more 18-year-old voters registering as something other than Demopublican or Repubicrat. I don't see this happening, do you?Who owns culture. (Score:2)
Culture in general belongs to society at large. It is in the best interest of the corporation to to make you forget that 'The Little Mermaid' existed before Disney's version. Thus elements of the culture end up belonging to the corporation. Btw-> thanks to the Canadian Government for selling the image of the Mountie (Royal Canadian Mounted Police- you know, red jacket, funny black pants) to Disney. But I can't fault corporations for that, they're just trying to make a buck like everybody else (and before I get flamed to oblivion for that last, a man's gota eat, so hold your torches). I can fault them for thier tactics in trying to do so.
And now the blindingly obvious...
Individual works of art such as movies, and music do in fact belong to individual people, or corporations. They have for ages, and people do and have in fact earned a living making works of art that become part of a culture. (Depending upon how you look at it code can be a piece of art. But I digress.)
Culture in and of itself cannot be completely owned by one person/entity. There is a culture that is shared by code-writing geeks and nerds[sic] and in some sense it does belong to them as a group, but it also belongs to the individuals who have contributed it. A case in point, slashdot. It belongs to the comunity that uses it, and at the same time it belongs to Andover. Would you fault Andover for owning it?
The presumption that something that makes up part of your culture belongs to you is exactly what got people so angry when the interface to freshmeat changed a while back (remeber?). The culture doesn't belong to code-writing geeks and nerds any more than it does to the corporations. (And now my bias comes through.)Its just that invoking code-writing geeks and nerds is the only way that Katz attempts to write for, and connect with, this audience.
--locust
JonKatz HOWTO (Score:2)
1. Read Slashdot story X.
2. Read Slashdot story Y.
3. Read Slashdot story Z.
4. Read into Slashdot story X. Let this affect you personally.
5. Read into Slashdot story Y. Let this affect you personally.
6. Read into Slashdot story Z. Find (usually contrive) a common plot.
7. Reread Slashdot stories X and Y. Use contrived plot to aid in providing desired results.
8. Create new words to aid in describing plot.
9. Write story.
10. Liberally use the word 'Net' in rewrite.
11. Post story.
12. Wait for comments to pour in.
13. Remember comments are useful in next article, so select a choice few.
14. Repeat process.
Katz is a College Freshman (Score:4)
In *every single essay* Katz has a sentence that reads remarkably similar to this:
"For hundreds of years, censorship has been the primary tool by which government, monarchies, educational and religious institutions and, lately, powerful corporations, have asserted political, cultural and economic dominance. "
Or, how about this:
"Institutions both governmental and corporate that feel threatened by the Net and the Web, are developing a pattern. Rather than embrace innovative and empowering new technologies to offer consumers and citizens choice and freedom, they seek out a handful of targets to use as warnings, examples of the nasty fate that will befall transgressors."
Does anyone edit Katz's writings? These lines are the typical "throwaway lines" used to link paragraphs in five-paragraph essays. They don't say anything specific and are always rooted in nifty generalizations that have no basis in fact. "For hundreds of years..." For chrissake, Katz: do some fucking research and get us a number. Use a fucking incident -- an actual event to make your writing more persusaive.
I read all of Katz's essays, and I'm amazed: he's a remarkably lightweight critique who never offers any specfic "insights." What Katz offers is generalized FUD: he picks up on an issue, decides to fit it in with his "project", and, damn the facts or specifics, writes around the issue until he drills home a point that could have been "drilled home" in the first sentence.
Does Katz just write these things willy-nilly and send them off to Slashdot to be "published?" Does anyone actually offer Katz some constructive criticism about his pieces?
Jon, really: you need an editor. You shouldn't fire these pieces off for public consumption until you do some real research. They're not persuasive texts: they're ramblings.
It's the typical sort of Slashdot mentality: well, if I can't think of a comparison, well, I'll use Hitler -- or, better yet, I'll use the typical "communism bad, capitalism good" sort of comparison -- or, wait! -- how about "open source good, non open source bad" -- yeah! that's it.
Katz, go ahead and respond to this. I never see any responses to your so-called "pieces". Why do you write like a college freshman? Why don't you do better research? Why don't you use an editor?
Re:A message to Mr. Katz (Score:2)
You're right. I assume (hope) Mr. Katz knows the difference as well. But... The DVD CCA sued claiming that that is what DeCSS was for. They claimed that DeCSS was solely to illegally copy DVDs. Yes, this is wrong, and that is part of the problem with their case. No DeCSS is needed to duplicate DVDs. DeCSS is just needed to view them.
'Fraid not (Ahem... MPA was in the proper context) (Score:2)
From the beginning of Katz's article:
This week, the Motion Picture Association (MPA)...
I guess you can de-pain yourself
Re:You got it wrong this time (Score:2)
A LIE REPEATED ONE HUNDRED TIMES BECOMES THE ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Gobels
Actually, what you are saying is a lie, but so much people have said it, now everybody believes it is true
Re:Please Die article (Score:2)
The last thing he wants to do is to get bogged down in details: he's short on time, so he can't respond to each comment. Likewise, I'm sure he'll say publicly that he reads all the responses to his articles but that -- and, of course, we understand -- he can't possibly respond to each posting.
Katz is really no better than Berst or Dvorak. They assume that they're plugged into current trends because they're good observers. But what all three of them fail to realize is that you need to respond to the trends and not just observe them.
It's odd that Katz refuses to respond on this forum. It's disconcerting, too: he obviously can submit a story whenever he wishes. He doesn't go through the same "editorial board" that the rest of do. So he posts his stories and in nearly every single piece that he posts, he gets something wrong: he misunderstands the fundamentals or, worse yet, doesn't take the time to check his facts.
The end result is that Katz is using Slashdot to further his own "project" at the expense of all Slashdot's readership. If he considers himself a critic -- and thinks he's "in tune" with the pulse of his readership -- then he oughta get off his high horse and start doing the hard work of defending his views.
Slashdot is an interesting community: but by taking advantage of Slashdot's readership (and apparently circumventing the editorial constraints that keep this readership in "check") Katz is merely using the community as a sounding board for his own agenda.
It's goes against the sprit of the community and should be examined (and discussed) further.
"destroyed the idea"? (Score:2)
The net has not destroyed the idea of censorship. The net has not even made it especially hard to censor. Harder, yes, but the fact is, people with guns can still make you stop talking about their government.
Jon, your understanding of the issue does not surpass that shown by the MPAA press statements. You happen to be right, but not through understanding, just through knowing people who do.
Go away. Stop preaching at us. Stop pretending you're part of "us". You've got wayyy too much political agenda to be a hacker.
Oops! The missing link (Score:2)
--
Re:Nice! (Score:2)
You should also consider submitting this article to a somewhat more "mainstream media" site. Whether or not it would be accepted, this article would make an interesting read for non-technical people as well. Especially the totalitarian types.
If he's going to submit it to a mainstream media source he should at least fix all of the technical innacuracies, the most of glaring of which is his assertion that CSS prevents copying of DVDs.
Kintanon
Re:MPA is associated with MPAA, DUH lordsuck (Score:2)
That's like saying something is posted on Freshmeat, when it's really on Slashdot, and then trying to CYA because they're both owned by Andover.
Jon Katz Political Speech Writer (Score:2)
efforts to stick their fingers in the digital dike
Sorry, a phrase like that deserves repeating.
I agree. Perhaps we've found the right niche for Jon. Let's have a Slashdot political action committee to draw attention to tech issues in the presidential elections. Put Rob in suit and have Jon write inflamatory/attention getting speeches for him.
Hey, if we're going to sit around bitching and moaning over the latest censorship, encryption, whatever, outrage, we might as well get some press coverage out of it. Who knows? We might even change a few peoples minds on the subject.
Remember the DMCA affects the US only (Score:2)
Non US companies can reverse engineer, US ones can't, hmm guess this will have some implications.
Re:Is Censorship/control ALWAYS bad? (Score:2)
Good point, but I think that the quickest way for people to learn skepticism is by repeated exposure. Hopefully, after getting their 11,000th chain email / doomsday prediction, they'll come to realize that it's all just noise and advertising. I say this with some trepidation, though, having just recieved a 'good-luck' chain-letter forwarded by a fellow white, middle-class friend. I'll 'return' the favour with 50 or so replies w/history ; ) That usually helps to get the point across.
These people need American TV, beer and video games.
Refuse to sit in the back of the OS Bus (Score:3)
The more things change the more they stay the same. We've been sitting in back of the OS bus for years. Since the media has discovered that Linux is "cool" and companies realize they can turn a buck on the hard work of the Open Source revolution, it is this revolution that is in a position of power and importance. It's time to
change the world.
Katz is right. This is a fight we can and will win. We have to. We have no choice otherwise it's over. This is our Waterloo. Or rather I should say, this is their Waterloo. This is where we stand up and say, no we are in charge of our destiny and we're not going to tolerate the behavior of jackbooted thugs like the MPAA.
I wanna play DVDs on my Linux box. It's a simple yet tragic hard fought freedom. And if we all don't earn this freedom, what's the next one to fall?
I hope that come LinuxWorld this week that there are plenty of folks that take some time out of the convention and protest. Let the media know, blast the message, we're not going to sit in the back of the bus. We don't back down, and we're not going to tolerate some mega corperation dictating terms of what we can or can not do with our computers.
If the petigree of DeCSS is in doubt, time to make an alternative implementation and post it on the net.
Regards...
Re:The Net can be censored (Score:2)
If they try to stop reverse engineering, it will go underground.. heck, tha's where us hacker/geeks have been our whole lives anyway, isn't it? They bust FTP? They bust HTML? Use something else. It's easy to do...
In the end, the technology and those who embrace it *will* win.
"Cyberbooks" by Ben Bova (Score:2)
An approximate quote from the book:
(naive inventor-type character): "So, with my new invention, we can get and read books without having to go to a store, find them, and buy them! We don't need to print them, truck them across the country, stock them in warehouses, track them in inventory, put them on store shelves, or any of those hassles! It will be great! You'll just buy one cyber-pad, and then adding books to it will be cheap and easy!"
(older, worldly-wise character looks around nervously) "Shhh, keep it down, kid. You're going to get us killed! Don't you see how many jobs you could eliminate with this thing? Don't you realize how big and powerful the publishing and bookstore companies are?"
Once again, science fiction predicted the future. I'll have to dig that book out and read it again.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:Dangerous Sentiments (Score:2)
If the government enstates controls, we sidestep them.
If they block a port, we pick a new one.
If they block a protocol, we tunnel inside another one.
If they make the whole network innefficient, we build a new one.
That's how it works. That's how we got what we have today.
It's one thing to say they can use technical solutions.. but those solutions have to exist! And they DON'T! And many companies, you can bet, have spent ENORMOUS amounts of money to find them, only to come up blank.
Remember..
The government cannot tell me what to do with my network. They cannot tell you what to do with yours, and they cannot tell us both what to do when we hook them together.
Re:Is Censorship/control ALWAYS bad? (Score:2)
And people, the public, have to learn to decide for themselves whether information is good or not.
ONe problem with technical support email is that it gets SWAMPED. IT is *SO* easy to send mail, people send mail all the time without thinking. If they actually had to write a letter, or talk coherently on the phone, they would work a bit harder to solve their own problems first.
A similar effect happens with the public.. they get email, and don't think about how easy it coul dhave been for it to be a hoax.. they assume some kind of 'effort' was needed to inform them about a riot.
The Truth in Advertising and the FDA regulations are not censorship. They do not prevent you from saying your bit. They simply state that if you *lie* or *misrepresent* what you are advertising/claiming, you can be held legally responsible. This is not censorship, this is how soceity shoudl function. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of that speech.
Linux Player (Score:2)
ON that note.. I must point something out.
Who ever said we couldn't write a player for linux? Who is the 'they' that didn't write one? *ANY* developer can apply and get appropriate keys. Yes, it probably costs money.. but how much? Certainly, this puts it outside the realm of true open source....
but to say that 'they' won't allow a player for linux, or to insinuate it, is wrong. there is no 'they'.
Dangerous Sentiments (Score:2)
The Net not censorable? This is not the case!
Consider two stories recently from slashdot: universities around the country banning the use of Napster [napster.com], and one university banning access to the webpage dialpad.com. It is only a matter of time before governments and others start seriously toying with the idea of various technical solutions to prohibit access to pornography, copyrighted materials, source code deemed illegal, whatever. [dialpad.com]
The most dangerous way to approach this threat is to assume everything will be okay. Every one who reads slashdot that lives in Norway should be writing dead-tree mail to complain about the treatment of Jon Johansen, everyone in the US should be writing congress and the press to point out that the MPAA is using the DMCA to usurp fair use rights in spite of the intent of Congress. If you live in Australia you should be writing letters every month ccomplaining about the net censorship law, if you live in Arizona you need to write your representative to complain about the propsed legislation to prohibit students from using their net access for non-educational activites.
The net hasn't "destroyed the very idea of censorship." The last thing we can afford to do is assume this. Those who value the current freedom of the net and the current freedom to code should be writing one letter at least every month to a politican or newspaper.
Is Censorship/control ALWAYS bad? (Score:3)
Disclaimer: Deals more with the govt censorship issue than the MPAA. I happen to hold the personal opinion that the MPAA is just trying to find a way to gouge the average consumer more :)
Summary: Not all censorship is bad. Take a chill pill
That felt like a highly inflammatory article, which painted everything with a huge, broad brush. Ok, so we know that Jon Katz feels that censorship, big government and big organizations of any kind are bad. But is that always true? The average American judges based on what they see around them, which is not necessarily true around the world. Education levels, gullibility, etc, vary. Are there places where SOME controls might not be bad? A couple of examples:
These are anecdotes which I know through personal experience or through friends who were actually there. I'm very sure that most non-first world country people have heard these and could contribute some even funnier/sadder stories. Or even people in developed countries.
Truth is, in any country where education isn't sufficiently high and skepticism isn't strongly in place, the free flow of information can hurt much more than it can help. Censorship to most governments is less about keeping total control over their citizens than it is about keeping out false information, information that can lead to totally irrational and damaging actions. For instance, a funny facet of politics in M'sia are the "poison pen" campaigns, when unsigned letters are circulated about a particular political candidate. These letters contain some absolutely unbelievable accusations. It doesn't matter that the average, well-educated voter would dismiss this out of hand. It just needs to hit the more gullible ones who will believe it and the candidate's reputation is ruined ... for no reason.
The US has plenty of such safeguards too. It's just not called censorship here, even though it is the control of information. Think "Truth in Advertising", or FDA approval for health claims.
Personally, I think that as a population matures, people get more skeptical and you can trust the general population to decide for themselves what is right and what isn't. However, in a developing world, a little more control and protection may be a better idea. Something along the lines of Plato's Philosopher King ideals ... only when you are truly "educated" can you make better decisions. Also akin to the parent/child relationship, where the parent must guide the child until he's ready to make his own decisions.
Dangerous Sentiments (Score:5)
The Net not censorable? This is not the case!
Consider two stories recently from slashdot: universities around the country banning the use of Napster [napster.com], and one university banning access to the webpage dialpad.com [dialpad.com]. It is only a matter of time before governments and others start seriously toying with the idea of various technical solutions to prohibit access to pornography, copyrighted materials, source code deemed illegal, whatever.
The most dangerous way to approach this threat is to assume everything will be okay. Every one who reads slashdot that lives in Norway should be writing dead-tree mail to complain about the treatment of Jon Johansen, everyone in the US should be writing congress and the press to point out that the MPAA is using the DMCA to usurp fair use rights in spite of the intent of Congress. If you live in Australia you should be writing letters every month ccomplaining about the net censorship law, if you live in Arizona you need to write your representative to complain about the propsed legislation to prohibit students from using their net access for non-educational activites.
The net hasn't "destroyed the very idea of censorship." The last thing we can afford to do is assume this. Those who value the current freedom of the net and the current freedom to code should be writing one letter at least every month to a politican or newspaper.
Re:A few things to consider... (Score:2)
Ordinarily I don't like facile literary analogies when trying to analyze complex issues involving lots of parties. There is too much of a tendency to assign to each of these parties one of the roles from the book. You avoided that error while bring the point straight home. The true heroes of Lord of the Rings were Frodo, of course, and Sam. Frodo is obvious, a reluctant hero, an ordinary person who takes on a tremendous burden because the task must be done...
Sam is less obvious, but I suspect that Tolkien wanted to emphasize the heroic aspects of his personality as highly as anyone else in the story. Sam wanted happiness, comfort and friendship. The few times he thought about uses for The One Ring, he sould have turned his corner of the Shire into a garden and a breadbasket. The only control he ever wanted was what he needed to make himself and his own comfortable. The world would have been a better place with Sam in charge simply because he would have done nothing to anyone. The desire for power over anyone else had no hold on him.
Now, what does this have to do with open source? Well, why would anyone spend countless hours of his own time working on software for his own use and for the possible accolades of his peers when he could pay much less than that time is worth and get a shrink-wrapped package that did the job? Control over his own life, his own data, his own computer. We want to make tools to make our own lives easier or more fulfilling. As Eric Raymond said in The Cathedral and the Bazaar [tuxedo.org]:
Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch.
And we not only do we not object when other people benefit from it, we have realized that the collaboration that the open source model makes possible can provide us with useful enhancements in return. The guarantee of control over the software on our systems, the source code and the right to modify it, and distribute those modifications is control over our own lives.
Free Mongolia? Don't you mean Tibet? (Score:2)
Mongolia is an independent country, Tibet was invaded in 1954 and the Chinese government is practising a systematic cultural and ethnic genocide through imigration of ethnic chinese and suppression of Tibetan culture.
It is currently illegal to posses a picture of the dalai lama in Tibet so most tibetans keep an empty
yellow picture frame in their home as a symbolic gesture.
see www.tibet.org and www.tibet.com for info
Re:A technological solution (Score:2)
--
Re:A technological solution (Score:2)
--
A good next step for the OSS community... (Score:2)
Then 'we' could point to that innocuous software and say 'Look... *this* was the point of cracking CSS". Might really help the public to understand the hammerlock that the DVD people have on the entire format too...
Software laws (Score:2)
Could we have some research, please... (Score:2)
Also, use of the phrase "industry stooge (or shill) Jack Valenti" is de rigeur in any discussion of the MPAA. Please use it in any future articles on this topic; it would warm my heart.
Not about copying! (Score:3)
Misconceptions. (Score:3)
Criticism (Score:2)
Last month, the DVD Copyright Control Association sued 72 hackers and Web site authors for posting - or even linking to software (DeCSS) that unlocks the system for preventing illegal copying of video discs.
I've seen a lot of criticism directed to John Katz here in Slashdot. Not that I like his style, but I've always felt that people went a bit overboard with that. Now, is it true that the DVD encryption prevents copying? Or should I finally understand the reason for all that criticism?
One of your better articles, Katz (Score:3)
But the RIAA, MPAA, and other various "cartels" in the USA can be fought.
As it stands, the Linux DVD project is just a bunch of viewing tools, and filesystem and hardware drivers--not something the average Linux luser is going to be able to put together yet.
What will finally put the nail in the MPAA's coffin is a graphical, userland program that is simple to install, and comparible to the various Windows players out there. Get it into RedHat or one of the other distributions.
Think of it from the journalists' point of view: sure, we can mirror the source all over the place but face it, a bunch of source files is meaningless to a clueless reporter, or worse, to them it means hacker. A full-featured (at least professional looking) application that any luser can install and play DVDs out of the box would really get the point of this lawsuit across to the various journalists and shapers of public opinion.
If you are a bored coder looking for a project, please consider helping the Linux Video [linuxvideo.org] project!
________________________________
Re:Censorship lives (Score:2)
> of information. How many Americans would ever
> read the Communist Manifesto?
I read it in High School and thought that was
a normal thing. I have since realized it isn't.
The ideas most people have about "communism" are
really laughable. (like the idea that it is even
any 1 single ideology).
> Some, I admit, but the fact of the matter is
> that if you teach them young enough and
> from all angles that one view is right and the
> other is absurd, fringe, radical, or evil, the
> vast majority will reject that view outright,
> regardless of whether the information is readily
> available
Definitly true. Its very interesting the things
that we are told and believe. We are told that
its important that we can vote and choose good
leaders...thats what makes us "free".
Even after we grow up and see that the system
encourages our leaders to essentially take bribes
and become corrupt and work towards their own self
interest...we still believe that the ability to
vote makes us free and that we need these leaders.
Ask any american what the "most free country in
the world is" and they will tell you that its
this one. We are "free". Most will continue to
say it long past the time that they have monitors
installed in their walls (figurativly speaking
of course).
However...it is about availability of information.
The world does change, it just happens slowly.
The people in power want to keep things rolling.
Those people on the fringe are a threat. Ideas
can operate alot like viruses. They spread. Once
the idea is out there...it can spread from
individual to individual.
While I agree with you that early childhood
programming which is re-enforced by popular
culture, *IS* powerful, It is not the be all
and end all. New ideas still have power.
The thing that truly scares the people in power
is not that these ideas are out there...it is
that with the internet, they are now readily
available. If you want to read the communist
manifesto...you can do it very easily. Its
just a few clicks away (as you demonstrated).
How much is a film worth? (Score:2)
Every couple of years or so we get to see a new "superproduction" which must be necessarily more costly to produce than the former one.
The stars must always get higher salaries, just to pretend they are better. People like Jim Carrey and Sandra Bullock get over $10 million per film. Are they so much better than the extras who almost pay to appear in films?
The public doesn't seem to think so. They will do anything to get a free copy of a film or music. After all, when I buy a book, it's mine as long as I keep it. There is no "pay per read" for books, why should I pay every time I want to see an old film?
Eventually, producers will have to come to the conclusion that it's useless to try to impose value by marketing alone. If they want to be paid for their work, it must be for real work, with real value to the buyer.
Most people are not thieves, they will not steal a work of art if they are convinced that it's morally wrong to do so. But people aren't suckers either. They do not agree kindly to the idea of rich magnates getting richer by deceiving the masses.
Fear of Technology (Score:2)
The first option, chosen by most power mongers, is to try to suppress all change. Any invention, change, or technological advance is branded heresy, traitorous, or in these digital days, as piracy.
The second option, which is almost never chosen by anyone who has power over any large chunk of anything, is to try and keep pace with the change. This, of course, is immensely difficult.
The catch is that those who try to suppress all change invariably end up getting toppled, because of the simple fact that you can't stop progress. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't close Pandora's box.
The second catch is that it is almost impossible to keep up with all the change that goes on in the world. Those who try to keep up with it either end up becoming innefectual power holders, or they fail to keep up with it and revert to supression.
The stable system is the one where change is allowed, and power is transfered smoothly to those who have grown up around the newer systems (systems in the most general sense). Instead of a palace coup, the power is handed down to someone new, and the previous holder frequently hangs around to advise the new leadership on the <cliche>timeless truths of leadership</cliche>. This system always is a bit behind the current front edge of technology and whatnot, but is never so far behind that people say 'fsck these a-holes, we'll take control now thank you.'
If the MPAA, DVD/CA, etc. would embrace this, they would stand a chance of not losing it completely. However, organizations such as these almost never take the stable approach. They are concentrated on maximum gain, and maximum gain, in the short term, is had by suppression and extortion. They don't really care if the systems they are a part of topple five years after they drop dead. They are interested in becoming very rich now.
-Matt
Re:A message to Mr. Katz (Score:2)
Yes, this is wrong, and that is part of the problem with their case. No DeCSS is needed to duplicate DVDs. DeCSS is just needed to view them.
I think what Munky was referring to was that the DVD CCA used selected, out of context posts from slashdot to boost their own case. Given that they seem to assume every
--
Katz has got it wrong again! (Score:2)
It's an entirely different feature that's tries to prevent copying; a specially-mangled block on the disk, or something.
Re:A message to Mr. Katz (Score:3)
This is kinda off-topic, but since Katz's brings it up, and everyone seems to be talking about it, I'll talk about it too. I'm not taking sides on the whole DeCSS thing, because I think it has legitimate uses, but can also see how it opens things wide up for pirating of DVDs, but I have a feeling the MPA will easily win this case if the OSS doesn't figure out what exactly it's argueing. There are so many confusing points the OSS is trying to make that the may very well lose through disorganization.
One thing that they really need to figure out is the issue of copying. I have read that you can already make bit for bit copies of DVDs. But I have also read that these copies can't play on any standard DVD since the "copy protection" part of the disk is not burned correctly on these copiers. Also, the major point the OSS is making is that the MPA is keeping them from making backup copies of their DVDs, which they are legally entitled to. The problem being they have already argued that copies can be made. They then continue to argue that DeCSS doesn't help pirates make copies of movies, which defeats the whole point of argueing that they are using DeCSS for making legal backup copies. There are only 2 options, either DeCSS helps people make copies (whether they are legal copies or not) or it doesn't have anything to do with making copies, in which case their arguement about making legal backups in null and void. Everyone needs to get their ducks in a row if they plan on having any chance to win this case, because at the rate it's going, it looks like a lost cause...
Multi-binding API needed for wide acceptance (Score:2)
This isn't intended as an anti-Java comment (quite the opposite), but merely a reflection on the fact that we'll be needing C, C++, Perl, Tcl and Python language bindings if this is to take the world by storm and fulfil its promise. Many top-class developers in languages other than Java would like to contibute to the effort I'm sure, but they can't do that unless they are given either existing bindings or an interoperability API in the lingua franca of C so that they can create them themselves.
I worry about nose-thumbing. (Score:2)
I want to think you're right, Jon. I really do. But if these corporations get their way, as they seem to have done for at least the last 100 years, they might figure out a way to MAKE it censorable. Or just plain kill it. These are legitimate things to worry about.
Necessary link (Score:2)
20. Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.
26. Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.
69. Maybe you're impressing your investors. Maybe you're impressing Wall Street. You're not impressing us.
70. If you don't impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Don't they understand this? If they did, they wouldn't let you talk that way.
72. We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it.
Re:Dangerous Sentiments (Score:2)
It seems in every single thread thread regarding injustice there is one American who thinks that the right way to get something done is to cut down a few trees and send them to Washington where they can be at best filed and most probably thrown away. If anything, the dangerous sentiment here is the idea that writing to your leaders will accomplish anything what so ever.
This is not complaining about about the speed limit in your state, or even about some company killing spotted owls. This is the real thing, true revolution that is going to change the entire way our world and economy works, and democracy will not serve us here.
Our side of this argument basically amounts to removing copyright laws. This would be the biggest, most radical, and most painful political desition made since Lincoln abolished slavery in America or maybe since the allies went to war over Poland. We are not up against a million, or even a billion dollars of interests, we are up against trillions and trillions.
No, talk and Slashdot discussion will not help much. But nor will writing a bunch of useless letters to corrupt and snug polititions.
But fact is that civil disobedience might. For every program they ban, we up the ant and make them ban something else. It's progress by pain, but we do still live in democracies, so if we can drive the government to the point where the violations start to hurt the general populace, only then we can suddenly turn and face the idiots in power.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:Multi-binding API needed for wide acceptance (Score:2)
Freenet's philosophy is to allow people to basically run their nodes according to how they see fit. Provided they conform to the Freenet message format, and follow the protocol's reccomendations as to how different message types should be handled, it is irrelevant what language they are written in.
Additionally, to demonstrate Freenet's cross-platform nature, we have already created a Perl client (which allows a user to Interact with the Freenet network).
So, to conclude, while all of our development effort is currently going into the Java version of the server, we intend to make it easy for others to implement the server in other languages (although this would be premature at this stage as there may be minor modifications to the protocol before the first release).
--
Shoulda taken the blue pill ;) (Score:2)
Re:No one needs to profit from distribution. (Score:2)
Re:Katz is a College Freshman (Score:3)
Re:Katz is a College Freshman (Score:2)
He has replied at least to me. If you tell him constructively why the fsck he is off the mark he usually replies. Same stands for cases when you catch him that he has gone only half the way or was scared to write what he actually thinks in order to be politically correct (actually Katz is usually politically correct and does not touch too deep very controvercial topics). But this means that you should explain in your comment why he is off the mark, why do you think that he is not telling what he thinks, etc.
If you just pull a flamethrower... Oh well... I would not answer in his place either
Re:Criticism (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly the idea. An "association" like DVDCCA, is really no different than a corporation, IMO. Anyone could theoretically make a DVD player, but only members of the DVDCCA will have their keys printed on the discs. Result? DVDCCA members have a collective monopolistic control over the DVD player market. Do any lawyers out there know if there is any precedent about such "collective monopolies" as I call them?
A message to Mr. Katz (Score:5)
This is not what CSS does, it scrambles the content from being viewed by anything but a registered player capable of returning authentication tokens back to the hardware. The wording Jon uses here implies that Jon Johansen is a Cracker that wanted to start a piracy business selling ripped DVDs. This is not the case, Mr. Johansens thoughts were somerthing like this: "I like Linux...I like DVDs...too bad I can't watch DVDs on Linux...OH! Wait. I will just reverse engineer the CSS system and make a player for Linux. HEY I DID IT. I had better tell the world." That had not intention of ripping DVDs. Please remember that the courts are going to be listening to what we say, and if we stray off and say that de_css is for ripping DVDs, were going to lose this case.
Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
Wrong target.... (Score:2)
Whack-a-Mole style practical joke... (Score:2)
In order to illustrate how impossible it is to control the web, I would encourage some developer to include a simple comment "Free Mongolia" somewhere in the source code.
Just for the warm feeling it'll give everyone knowing that it'll be on each Chinese Govenrment computer.
"The reports of my death ..." (Score:3)
Katz writes:
Comments like that have been made for hundreds of years, each time a new means of publishing has enabled more to published wider and cheaper, but have any been the death blow? If they had, Jon wouldn't be writing that sentence, would he?
Among many, the urge to censor runs strong and deep. It always has, it always will. Many with that urge are just now beginning to pay attention to the Internet. The battle lines have been drawm, but the war is not remotely close to over.
I will dance in the streets if and when the day comes when the Internet has dealt a death blow to the very idea of censorship. But to argue that the day is already upon us is fatuous at best